[gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Second table summarizing TMCH Charter questions, relevant input and potential follow up

Mary Wong mary.wong at icann.org
Tue Feb 7 19:06:19 UTC 2017

Hello Massimo and everyone,

The topic of geographical indications may be something the Working Group can discuss following up with Deloitte about. What you see in the table is the exact text of the response that was received from Deloitte. - note, however, that it was not in response to a specific question about geographical indications, since that was not something we had asked them. The specific question to which that answer was provided related to the number of “[o]ther marks that constitute intellectual property and meet a registry's individual requirements" (for comparison with court-validated and registered marks).

I hope this helps.


From: Massimo <Massimo at origin-gi.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 11:04
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Second table summarizing TMCH Charter questions, relevant input and potential follow up

Dear Mary,

I am not sure I understand the answer provided to question 8 on Geographical Indications: As of January 2017, no registry operator has pursued the option of including marks within the category of “"Other marks that constitute intellectual property and meet a registry's individual requirements".

I am aware of at least one case where a Geographical Indication has been submitted under TMCH guidelines 2.4.1 and accepted as Geographical Indication. It might well be the only case. But, again, I am not sure I understand the answer provided to question 8.



Mr Massimo Vittori
Managing Director – oriGIn
1, rue de Varembé 1202, Geneva, Switzerland
Telephone: +41 (0) 22 755 07 32
E-mail: massimo at origin-gi.com<mailto:massimo at origin-gi.com>


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any.

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: 06 February 2017 15:50
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Second table summarizing TMCH Charter questions, relevant input and potential follow up

Dear all,

Following on the circulation of the previous summary table of the questions, input and discussions so far on TMCH Charter Questions categories 1 and 2 (below), please find attached a similar summary table for the remaining categories (3 – 6). As the Working Group has yet to begin discussing these, staff has taken the liberty of adding what we believe to be relevant background information from the community comments to the TMCH that were provided for the 2015 RPM Paper.

We will post both tables to the Working Group wiki for your easy reference as well.

Thanks and cheers

From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Date: Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 18:18
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Table summarizing TMCH Charter questions, WG follow up questions, and input from Deloitte and Registry Operators

Dear all,

As discussed at the end of the Working Group call yesterday, staff has begun to compile a table that combines the agreed TMCH Charter questions with the relevant Working Group follow up questions, Deloitte response (if any), and (where applicable) input that was received from various registry operators and the Registries Stakeholder Group (note that the Registries SG is the only community group so far that has provided us with a response to our initial solicitation for input from all the various Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies).

Attached is the compilation we have done for TMCH Categories 1 (Education) and 2 (Verification and Updating of TMCH Data). As Kathy and others noted on the call, not all questions have direct responses, and in some cases we have inserted what we thought might be relevant information even if it is not an actual reply. Do let us know if you spot any inaccuracies or omissions.

We hope you find the document useful. If we may, we suggest that you review it with a view toward identifying the following:

·         What additional data or follow up input is needed, and from whom, to complete our review of these aspects of the TMCH?

·         What additional data or follow up input should we request from Deloitte, including for our expected discussion with them at ICANN58?

Please note that we have not yet included any information from the Analysis Group’s review of the TMCH, as we understand that a Final Report will be forthcoming from them shortly, and possibly before ICANN58. We will incorporate any relevant data once the Final Report is out, and will in the meantime continue working on a table for the remaining TMCH Charter categories and questions.

The full Deloitte response to the TMCH Data Gathering questions and the three responses we received to the set of Registry-directed questions can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/_pHRAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_-5FpHRAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=jroRmaMXWXiwV17KiEs2VbJbIkyr7gBxC8haonVMxAg&s=JRfRyBHcYlRYaVYhBNd_QGIV-AxY2-Gm9330as9selc&e=>.

The full Registries Stakeholder Group response to our early solicitation for overall input can be found here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59643854/RySG%20RPM%20Response_05JUL16.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1468352438000&api=v2[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_59643854_RySG-2520RPM-2520Response-5F05JUL16.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1468352438000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=jroRmaMXWXiwV17KiEs2VbJbIkyr7gBxC8haonVMxAg&s=m8Iiq-OJf6S5MrAFLQdUafuYa9eNV2f16WCtGkPzGYo&e=>.

Thanks and cheers

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170207/fe8083ea/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1352 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170207/fe8083ea/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1296 bytes
Desc: image002.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170207/fe8083ea/image002-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1487 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170207/fe8083ea/image003-0001.jpg>

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list